Thursday, March 31, 2011

Postscript- August 2011:Since the original post, Ghadaffi's forces have folded quickly, without much of a fight, - a far cry from the hard-nosed NVA and VC regulars, and guerrilla auxiliaries that defeated the US in Vietnam. In the movie "Apocalypse Now" - Marlon Brando, playing the renegade Colonel Kurtz asserted that if only he had 10 divisions of NVA, he could more than hold his own and achieve victory in his war. Ghadaffi did not have such hard-nosed men willing to fight, but they too, did not have hard-nosed leaders on the order of Vo Nguyen Giap, Pham van Dong or Ho Chi Minh. And so it goes.

PAVN: Masters of the art...

I shed no tears for Libyan dictator Muamar Ghadaffi. His regime has long been associated with terrorism, brutality and interference in the affairs of other African countries. Over the years, numerous African leaders have been opposed to him and his expansionist agenda. In the 1980s, he received his just desserts. His modern force of almost 20,000 troops, well equipped with fighter jets and bombers, tanks, artillery, etc was ignominiously routed by the lightly-armed tribal fighters of Chad. You could say he has a long, bloody history. But some on the web seem to think he can be deposed in a quickie 3 week campaign. I have seen almost a euphoria on certain military enthusiast websites, captivated by high tech smart bombs and Tomahawk missiles, usually predicting quick victory over the architect of Lockerbie. This post shows however that such euphoria is misguided. If resolute enough Ghadaffi can drag out his end game for a much longer time than the projected "shake and bake" victory.

Mobile warfare across a wide front can certainly help Khadaffi and his loyalist forces. One blog gives a good summary of Mao's mobile warfare approach as applying to the Libyan loyalist effort. See Colonel Ghadaffi goes Mao. But there is an additional element needed if the loyalists are to stay in business. Moammar's forces cannot simply fight mobile warfare all the time, because the Coalition may be putting additional Special Forces on the ground to more closely coordinate air strikes - forces that will have their own assets on call like attack helicopters. Despite the UN resolution which orders an arms embargo to Libya, the Coalition is already arming and organizing the rebels to serve as a proxy ground force, and supplying free logistical support, and flying artillery. The game will be Coalition proxies fingering loyalist targets, then pulling back and letting air power pound them, before moving forward to mop up.

The Colonel's loyalist forces will thus need to prepare for detailed urban warfare as well, using dense urban areas to provide shelter in defence. Resolute urban defense can stymie the coalition assault not only because of the risk of civilian casualties, but built-up areas, including multistory buildings will provide much needed defensive strongpoints, and pivots for counterattacks. Strong urban positions will also allow rebel attacks to be seen off.

Thus while mobile warfare might take precedence, urban defense will be needed as well. The two work together in integrated fashion.

The vigorous counterattacking style is still relevant

Six possible elements of combat and organization

With hard-hitting mobile counterattacks, smaller formations, wide-area defense in built-up civilian/urban areas, increased manpower, and resolution by Khadaffi, his sons, or hand-picked successors, it is possible that the Colonel can hold out a long time. He of course may decide to exit, but he has enough resources in place to fight on for quite a while, IF willing to pay the price. It could take regular Western ground forces to make any real headway if loyalists dig in for a long fight, and use effective methods. More effective rebel proxies are another option- if they begin to deploy heavy weapons like tanks and towed/self-propelled artillery, if supplemented by support teams of Western Special Forces troops and/or mercenaries directing air strikes at ground level, or helping to operate the heavy iron. Against this reconfiguration of foes, there are six elements to a possible"long march" strategy for Khadaffi:

1) Lighten heavy units: Khadaffi's forces were in the beginning too heavy, with long logistical tails for fuel, food and munitions, that made for easy air targets. There is some evidence that this shortcoming is being addressed. They need to be lightened further and become more self-sufficient. The rebels will try to pin them in place with peripheral engagements, then pull back and wait for Coalition planes to clean up. The Colonel needs to lighten and disperse his forces more and stay mobile. Heavy weapons like tanks need to be dispersed and concealed, and used for quick strikes. Task and raiding forces need to be formed - specific material, equipment and manpower packages depending on the mission. Ambush squads groups for example can be deployed to delay or even rout rebel advances on open ground. There is no need for lumbering companies or battalions to be exposed.

2) Continually attack the rebels using small task forces that can get close, strike quickly then disperse, not massed formation with vulnerable logistics. The rebels should not be allowed time to consolidate, but attacked over a wide area. Their standard tactic will be to identify loyalist targets then pull back and call in Coalition airstrikes. Moammar's troops need to follow them closely, "hanging on the belt" like PAVN as noted above. In open desert terrain such tactics would be suicidal. But in built-up urban areas, they are more feasible. Loyalist troops must also counterattack wherever possible as swiftly as possible rather than massing for easy aerial decimation. Rommel's Infantry Attacks is another classic statement of this "counter-punching" approach. PAVN in Vietnam is more recent. "Hugging" tactics do not necessarily mean always rushing out to force the desired degree of proximity. 'Hugging" can also be achieved by patiently waiting in ambush.

Use small, mobile, agile task forces, infiltrating forward in civilian guise if needed, that can hit hard then disperse to reform. PAVN used the usual raiding parties and also sapper formations to do this, especially after Tet. Such smaller formations will be less vulnerable to airpower and create continual chaos in the ranks of the coalition proxies. The "hugging" tactics mentioned above will help reduce the effectiveness of US/European airpower. Continual attack does not mean stereotyped set pieces, or reckless commitments in the open field that draw crushing airpower, but a mix of flexible planned actions when the mix of advantages are right. It also means that the rebels will be constantly calling for Coalition "bailout" help, at the time and place of the loyalists' own choosing, tying up airpower in unimportant places. Small task forces, in civilian guise if needed will also be essential to hunting down Special Forces troops assisting the rebels. Such troops are a mortal danger to regime forces because of their capability of calling in air strikes and in training regime opponents. No sane military commander would let them operate unmolested. In Laos during the Vietnam War, PAVN did not play when such troops were in an area, and pulled out all the stops to neutralize or liquidate them.

NVA sapper at work.. smaller formations, hard hitting effect

3) Shelter in dense urban areas but use them as a maneuver base, not a static strong-point easily destroyed from the air. Embed deep in urban landscape, and always look to counterattack soon, when conditions are favorable: The Coalition proxies generally avoid combat in built up urban areas, preferring to "set up" air strikes. Nevertheless, to avoid the full brunt of that air power, the Colonel's troops will need to embed deep at times in strategic urban areas. Defenses in multistory and other civilian structures for example will be needed when gunships deploy, and will provide the necessary temporary shelter. Hardened bunkers and strong-points must also be constructed as needed. Once the opportunity presents itself, counterattack. If Coalition air strikes are heavy, again embed over a wide urban area in civilian structures to take advantage of their shelter while planning counterattacks. The urban base is a pivot, not a static point- a base for shifting men and material from to building, and built up area to built up area. Not all positions warrant the same investment of effort, and some positions may need to be abandoned as they become untenable, but they can always be re-infiltrated again as the pressure eases. Prioritization is obvious. It makes little sense to invest in a distant small town versus a medium sized city near or with an oil port.

4) Bait coalition aircraft into hazardous and/or time-consuming decoy attacks on constantly shifting, low value targets. In fighting airpower from the urban base, mobility and deception in defense will be essential. The Colonel's forces lack good anti-aircraft weapons in quantity-- like the man-portable SA-7 'Strela' that menaced so many gunships and helicopters in Vietnam, not to mention the heavier direct fire AA weapons. Still, any credible defense would not let the gunships operate unmolested. They need to be engaged with heavy small arms fire from a widely spaced variety of dug in urban positions, forcing them to fly higher, and buying time for additional tactical movement, such as the "hugging" tactics against enemy troops. This will reduce their effectiveness. In a properly layered AA defense, heavy weapons or missiles would take over at higher altitudes. Lacking these, the ground troops must pull another page from the PAVN book and set up up flak ambushes - baiting the aircraft close, concealing heavy machine guns and other assets until the very last minute, and until the bait is taken, blasting away full bore, and then relocating men and weapons to the next strongpoint to enhance survival. Infrared technology will foil some of these flak traps, and the armored A-10 'Warthog' jet will make for a short life for some defenders. But properly deployed over a wide area, they can bring some air assets down, or at the very least, decoy them on multiple wild goose chases. Over 1,800 US aircraft were lost in Vietnam combat. Over eighty (80%) of these combat losses were from heavy automatic weapons gunfire and AA cannon. Now you know why attack helicopters and A-10s, for all their gee-whiz technology, are so heavily armored. People on the ground are not playing.

Just as an infantry squad can pin down a much larger force with the proper defensive disposition, so too the gunships and helicopters can be pinned down for substantial periods on relatively low value targets. Million dollar gunships, A-10s and helicopters chasing 2-3 man teams armed with $70 rifles will have a positive diversionary effect for the loyalists over a wide area, though the 2-3 man cell may sometimes face a short-life span. In Vietnam, small groups of VC or NVA occupied large time, firepower and asset allocations, as helicopters, gunships, and air strikes "piled on" to eliminate a few men in an unimportant bunker, some of whom slipped away after all. And the loyalists will always have the option of melting away to reinfiltrate later at a more opportune time. While gunships are baited and tied up for hours clearing one city block of constantly shifting fighters, more important and more lethal strategic work can be done by loyalist forces elsewhere.

5) Blend with the masses, people's war style, refraining from counterattacks just for the sake of counterattacking. Withdraw if needed into ambushes or better tactical situations, or disperse to other urban shelter networks among the masses, and return as needed to counterpunch: Blending with the masses may seem shocking to some, but this is precisely what the rebels in Libya are doing to escape attack by regime troops. Does anyone think the Colonel's forces, likewise facing fierce attack (from the air), will angelically refrain from this option? Pious proclamations by Western leaders about "human shield tactics" also apply to their own favored rebel proxies, who are doing the exact same thing, although this is hardly pointed out by the mainstream media. The losers are civilians, as in any war.

Blending also goes hand in hand with withdrawing and returning. In Vietnam, ousting PAVN troops from one area often meant little. They bided their time and returned. A combined rebel/Coalition operation to take a town for example is not the end of the world. Defensive elements left behind can make life hazardous for Coalition ground proxies, and counterattacks by agile tasks forces can retake ground. It is not necessary for example to retake a city "officially" - just make it contested and untenable for the rebels, who will need to again call in Coalition airpower to start over from scratch with each setback. Counterattacks will depend on the tactical situation. Loyalist forces should not simply counterattack for its own sake. If for example, a street is under attack by C-130s, with nearby rebels waiting to mop up, prospects of a hugging counterattack must be weighed. If the rebels can be routed or engaged close so as to stymie air power with a fair chance of success, then loyalist forces would proceed. But if withdrawal through built-up civilian structures and rubble to another layer of urban defense is more feasible, then use this option. It may be also be better to lay low until gunships and helicopters depart while waiting in ambush for coalition proxies to emerge, before engaging them full bore. This will bring a return of air power, but the cycle can again be repeated, with opposing proxies making little overall headway despite air support on station. The picture thus is of a constantly shifting, see-saw pattern, a mix of deep defensive embedding, tactical withdrawals, counter-punches, and flexibility.

6) Seriously mobilize: Kadaffi also needs to bolster his manpower. Currently he is relying on (according to one source) about 10,000 faithful tribesmen as a core force, but this hardly seems enough. The mobile counter-attacks, wide area urban defense and enemies like C-130s will incur an increasing number of casualties. His 10,000 core fighters are backed by perhaps double that number of militia, but still more is needed. The Colonel needs to introduce conscription to create a manpower surge for the grim tasks ahead. Most of the lesser trained troops can be deployed in broad defense or extended range guerrilla activity, while the core regulars are husbanded for pivotal strong points or hard hitting counterattacks. Kadaffi also needs to mobilize whatever "fraternal assistance" he can get from other civilian nations, smuggling as much men and material as possible in under civilian guise. Just as Ho Chi Minh did not take the Americans at their word that they were exercising restraint and began total mobilization, Kadaffi too must undertake a serious mobilization of all available resources if he wants to stay in the field.

End game

Ideally, civilians are better served if local ceasefires are negotiated. But exactly how "ceasefires" will be negotiated when the 'coalition' is egging on insurgents in the civil war, and providing them with massive air support to attack beggars the imagination. It seems a very curious way to be "protecting" civilians for "humanitarian" purposes, when you are arming one set of civilians and sending them forth to kill other civilians, or conduct attacks that will get other civilians killed. In Sirte for example, there are numerous civilians that support Kadaffi. do they count for "protection" or is it only the anointed proxies of the Euro/US mission? It is clear that rebel forces have attacked, and will continue to attack and/or coerce and intimidate fellow Libyans who do not share their goals. So how does this jibe with "humanitarian" intervention? It sounds more like intervention in another civil war with "the West" backing its chosen side. The "Coalition" claim to be concerned about "making Khadaffi stop attacking civilians" is laced with sheer hypocrisy, since the Coalition is arming one set of civilians to attack another set civilians in an internal civil war.

Supposed terrorist-fighting America supporting Islamist terrorists in Libya? Then there is the well documented presence of Al Qaeda and Islamists in rebel ranks. Ghadaffi
in earlier years actually put down revolts by such Islamists in Benghazi. Now here they are at it again, in the mix. Ghadaffi has a legitimate security interest in preventing the resurgence of such Islamists. And in Iraq, Libyans were the second most represented nationality attacking Americans, and the single most represented nationality who state a desire to be suicide bombers. So we have the contradictory picture of an American president who claims he is fighting Islamic terrorism, yet is supporting Islamists with free arms, training, supplies and air support, Islamists documented as American killers, and who would like nothing better than to continue to kill Americans elsewhere. Can anyone say confusion? I knew you could...http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/0330/Qaddafi-claims-Al-Qaeda-could-overrun-Libya.-Could-it

Plenty of weaknesses plus internal defection threats, but does this mean the Colonel will fold quickly? On the negative side, Kadaffi, lacks troops of PAVN's hard-nosed quality and organization, the flat desert terrain is working against him, he has little diplomatic support, relatively limited manpower, and he does not have fresh resources flowing in from generous outside allies. He is handicapped too in being forbidden from negotiating his own reform and concession package on the ground with his own people, by the Coalition. Already an old man, Moammar may find it all a bit too much and throw in the towel. In the short run he can hold off the Coalition and its ground proxies for years, assuming the proxies continue in their current weak state and his ruling clique does not buckle under pressure and defect or attempt an internal coup. Personally for Kadaffi, an extended horizon in the political sense may be problematic because all European and US prestige is on the line for his overthrow. And it would be feasible for defectors or an internal coup to split his forces and bring him down. So at some medium term or short-term point, he will exit. A mass murderer, and long-lived dictator, some may well say, good riddance. But it is by no means clear that the Euro/US coalition can force him
to go quickly. With patient tactics he can hang on a long time.

Hollow "victory" even if the Colonel leaves? 'Victory' can be gained in Obama's War on the Colonel's exit, or will it? The 'Coalition' may find victory a bitter taste. A Khadaffi exit may be merely an opening stage. A guerrilla insurgency as in Iraq may well develop, sucking the US into yet another costly Mid East venture. 'Humanitarian objectives" may be nothing of the sort as continued fighting in years to come causes a much larger number of civilian casualties than if the Colonel was allowed to put down his internal rebellion. And Al Qaeda will have gained fresh supplies, arms and manpower and a better base in Libya to attack Americans thanks to the "Coalition". Naturally, terrorists will be seeking revenge on Western targets too in the years to come, bringing fresh attacks to America and Europe. The Libyan intervention may well set off a chain of unpredictable and unpleasant events in the future. Some such as commentator Frank Gaffney, argues that it serves as a future template for the liquidation of Israel, with the Arab League and European Union engineering a "solution" to Middle East problems. Gaffney speculates all this happening under an Obama Administration- a highly dubious notion, but in 30-40 years, his scenario may be on target. Who knows? That though, is another story altogether.

BOTTOM LINE: based on prior performance, Libyan troops do not inspire confidence. They were routed in Chad by lightly armed tribal fighters despite possessing the only jet fighters, tanks and heavy artillery on the field of battle. This post summarizes elements that MIGHT be used to improve that performance. Whether it will come to pass remains unknown.

QUOTE: "An important function of the nose is to warm and moisten inspired air. When air is exhaled, some heat and moisture are lost to the surroundings. The longer the nasal passage, the more efficient the nose is for warming and moistening incoming air and also the less heat and moisture are lost on exhalation. A narrow, high nose gives a longer nasal passage than a low, broad nose. Therefore, in cold or dry conditions, a high, narrow nose is preferable for warming and moistening air before it reaches the lings, and for reducing loss of heat and moisture in expired air. In hot, humid conditions a low, broad nose serves to dissipate heat (Wolpoff 1968; Franciscis and Long 1991)... The pattern of variation in nasal index corresponds very broadly to that expected if nasal form is indeed an adaptation to regional climate. The highest nasal index values, representing broad, low noses, tend to be those of populations in humid tropical regions of Africa and south-east Asia. Populations with low mean nasal indices (high, narrow noses) tend to be found in the cold, northern latitudes, and also in arid regions, such as the desert areas of east Africa and the Arabian peninsula.
..Davies found the nasal index taken in the living was closely correlated with skeletal nasal index. This suggests that there should likewise be an association between skeletal nasal index and climatic zone, and indeed other workers have found this to be the case.“
-- Mays. S. (2010). The Archaeology of Human Bones. Pg 100-101

2011 study finds significant correlation between nasal shape and climate. Dry areas are common in tropical zone micro-climates such as deserts.

QUOTE: “"The nasal cavity is essential for humidifying and warming the air before it reaches the sensitive lungs. Because humans inhabit environments that can be seen as extreme from the perspective of respiratory function, nasal cavity shape is expected to show climatic adaptation.. We report significant correlations between nasal cavity shape and climatic variables of both temperature and humidity. Variation in nasal cavity shape is correlated with a cline from cold-dry climates to hot-humid climates, with a separate temperature and vapor pressure effect. "
-- Noback, M. et al. (2011) Climate-related variation of the human nasal cavity. AJPA, 145: 4. 599-614

Some critiques of demic diffusion
From: Europe's First Farmers By Theron Douglas Price, Cambridge University Press, 2000
As regards Europe, demic diffusion theories have several problems..
pg 61-
Critics of demic diffusion hypothesis hold that there is no evidence for actual colonization, that "the predicted rate of farming dispersal under the hypothesis does not correspond to the observed rate, that there is strong evidence for continuity between Mesolithic and the Neolithc in most regions of Europe..", and that Cavalli-Sforza et al confuse the meaning of the Neolithic in different regions of Europe and attribute a farming economy to communities that have little or no evidence of farming. "Consequently, a good case can be made for local adoption of farming by the indigenous Mesolithic communities in most or all of Europe."

"The underlying problem of the demic diffusion model is that in order to subject it to mathematical treatment, Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza have considerably simplified the complex process of agricultural transition in Europe."
"Despite widespread support given to these [demic diffusion] claims, the results emerging from both the gross morphological and the genetic evidence have been inconclusive at best."
"Demic diffusion is only one among several types of population movement which may have contributed to the spread of farming in Europe; On the other hand, not all indigenists insist on the local adoption of farming throughout Europe. Scenarios combining limited population movement and local adoption are certainly possible."
pg 63-
As an alternative to the colonization hypothesis and the demic diffusion model, an availability model of the agricultural transition was developed to accommodate the role of the local hunter-gatherer, and allow for the effects of the agricultural frontier, in a 3 stage process, availability, substitution and consolidation.. all operating in the context of an agricultural frontier- a zone of contact and exchange between foragers and farmers. Such interaction might involve exchange of people, or exchange of crops, animals, vegetable or meat products, or material culture. There is also a historical context, ecological conditions, trade and many other factors, rather than a simple "conquest" or "colonist" versus indigene scenario. The agricultural frontier might be mobile or stationary, based on age demographics, land use patterns, population growth, soil conditions, etc. of the local zone of contact.
pg 69-
Researchers such as van Andel and Runnels argue in favor of the demic model for the spread of farming for example, but their own calculations fail to substantiate the population growth rates necessary for such a model to operate, and contradict the estimates put forth by Cavalli-Sforza.(pg 69.)African agriculture was well underway says John Reader:
Contrary to the claims of some diffusionists that African agriculture depended on demic diffusion from outsiders, historian John Reader shows African agriculture to be well underway on the continent, without any need for Near Eastern migrants to "jump start" it. Also contrary to popular conception, early agriculture in the Nile Valley did not become important due to cultivation dependent on the overflow of the Nile River. The genesis of early agriculture lay in exploitation of the Sahara which was often lush and green in earlier eras. To this was added exploitation of the fish resources in many watered areas in this region, including but not limited to the banks of the Nile. In short, the ancient inhabitants of the Nile Valley had a productive economy in operation long ago, and did not need to wait for reputed European migrants to diffuse the knowledge of agriculture to them.
Excerpt from Africa: A Biography of the Continent, by John Reader, Penguin Books, 1998, pp. 120-173
"Deliberate control of plant productivity dates back to 70,000 years ago in southern Africa, and the world's earliest known centrally organized food production system was established along the Nile 15,000 years ago, long before the Pharaohs, then swept away by calamitous changes in the river's flow pattern."
"Agriculture is essentially a process of manipulating the distribution and growth of plants so that greater quantities of their edible parts are available for harvesting and consumption. The world's earliest known evidence of natural resources having been manipulated in this way comes from archaeological excavations at the Klasies River cave site in South Africa.."
“The human populations of Africa which have survived the bad times of the last glacial maximum were well adapted to take advantage of the good times that followed. Their archaeological visibility increased rapidly, and a steady proliferation of rock engraving, painting, and decorative items in the record points to cultural systems of heightening sophistication. As for food-production systems underpinning this population growth and burgeoning cultural sophistication, two innovations are particularly relevant, in that each represents an important stage of technological development and both are clues to the future of humanity.”
“The first is the digging-stick weight, which is simply a large stone with a hole bored through the middle. The stone fits on the stick and its weight lends added force as the point is thrust into the ground. Digging-stick weights appear in the African archaeological record during the last glacial maximum, and their invention suggests that food-gathering technology had been improved in response to the greater importance of subterranean foods-roots, tubers, and corms- during the period of climatic stress. The second innovation is the projectile point, made for use on the spear or the bow and arrow….. the evidence of projectile-point technology in Africa pre-dates that from any other part of the world…..and there can be no doubt that the spear and the bow would have made hunting a more reliable source of protein and fat during bad times.”“The digging-stick represents the beginnings of agriculture and the trend towards a sedentary way of life. The projectile point represents a refinement of human capacity for taking life.”
“Agriculture supported life, and the projectile point denied it. Both factors were evident during the millennia which followed the last glacial maximum. In climatic terms, the good times continued uninterruptedly, and the human population increased exponentially. The attempts to manipulate food production which mark the beginnings of agriculture encouraged extended use of areas that previously would have been visited only temporarily. Successful attempts raised population size above the carrying capacity of the land.“
“In the course of the 2,000 years immediately prior to the last glacial maximum 18,000 years ago, the number of sites in the Nile valley increased four-fold; during the following 2,000 years (18,000 to 16,000 years ago) the number almost doubled again, and it increased by yet another one-third between 16,000 and 14,000 years ago. By 12,000 years ago, the number of occupation sites along the Nile valley was more than ten times the number known from before the last glacial maximum, 6,000 years earlier.”
“Throughout this period the majority of sites had covered an area about 400 m (the home base for a group of perhaps forty people), but the size of the largest rose from 800 m 18,000 years ago to more than 10,000 m 6,000 years later – large enough to constitute a village.”“During the 1960’s, an international team of archaeologists discovered a burial ground about three kilometers north of Wadi Halfa in the Sudan….Excavations uncovered the skeletons of fifty-nine men, women and children, who had been buried in shallow graves under thin slabs of sandstones sometime between 14,000 and 12,000 years ago….Points were found wedged in the spine, and embedded in the skull, the pelvis, and the limb bons..”
"The mainstays of the system were catfish and wetland (and possible wild grass grains), which were abundantly available at certain times of the year – catfish in summer, wetland tubers in winter – when surpluses were harvested and stored for consumption during the months of the year when food was less readily available.”
“Harvesting and storage mark the beginning of organized food production: agriculture. But at that stage of its development in the Nile valley organized food production was a high-risk strategy. Output was likely to vary unpredictably, and any increase in population size resulting from a succession of good years would inevitably lead to competition in less favorable times. The burials at Jebel Sahaba (Wadi Halfa) probably record one such episode of violent competition, or warfare, for limited resources of a less than luxuriant Nile valley that was surrounded by an utterly inhospitable desert.”
“The adoption of this broad adaptive strategy provided the large food supply needed by a growing population, but achieving maximum production called for a good deal of planning and the management of labour. This marks the beginning of an organized food-producing system: agriculture.”
“Dating from more than 15,000 years ago, the evidence from the Nile valley is arguably the earliest comprehensive instance of an organized food-producing system known anywhere on Earth. Given time, this pioneering system might have developed into the stupendous civilizations that ruled ancient Egypt for two and a half millennia from about 5,000 years ago. But it could never be. Disaster struck the Nile valley as its population reached a peak, and by 10,000 years ago occupation density had plunged to a level only slightly above that known for the time of the Wadi Kubbaniya site.”

KHOISANS HAVE TROPICAL ADAPTATIONS

"Several other long-range migration events have shaped the genetic landscape of Africa. Analyses of mtDNA and the Y chromosome supports studies of classical polymorphisms as well as archaeological data indicating that Khoisian-speaking populations (those whose languages contain clicks, which includes the !Kung San) may have originated in Eastern Africa and migrated into southern Africa >20 - 10kya (Cavalli-Sforza, 1997, Scozzari, et al. 1999). Analyses of Y-Chromosome haplotype variation have identified that the most ancestral Y-chromosome haplotype is present at moderate to high frequency in East African Sudanese and Ethiopians, as well as in southern African !Kung San .." -- Michael Crawford 2006. Anthropological Genetics: Theory, Methods and Applications. p. 363-364

"The shallower slope, that of the INuit, has a value of 0.77 versus 0.86 for the Khoisan, indicating thjat the tibiae of the cold-adapted Inuit grow less per increment of femral growth theoughout their entire ontogenetic sequence tha do those of the Khoisan. The Neanderthal data points can be seen to follow the Inuit trajectory." --Nancy Minugh-Purvis, Kenneth J. McNamara. Human Evolution through Developmental Change 2001

"Variation in limb proportions between prehistoric Jomon and Yayoi people of Japan are explored by this study. Jomon people were the descendents of Pleistocene nomads who migrated to the Japanese Islands around 30,000 yBP. Phenotypic and genotypic evidence indicates that Yayoi people were recent migrants to Japan from continental Northeast Asia who likely interbred with Jomon foragers. Limb proportions of Jomon and Yayoi people were compared using RMA regression and "Quick-Test" calculations to investigate relative variability between these two groups. Cluster and principal components analyses were performed on size-standardized limb lengths and used to compare Jomon and Yayoi people with other groups from various climatic zones. Elongated distal relative to proximal limb lengths were observed among Jomon compared to Yayoi people.

Jomon limb proportions were similar to human groups from temperate/tropical climates at lower latitudes, while Yayoi limb proportions more closely resemble groups from colder climates at higher latitudes. Limb proportional similarities with groups from warmer environments among Jomon foragers likely reflect morphological changes following Pleistocene colonization of the Japanese Islands. Cold-derived limb proportions among the Yayoi people likely indicate retention of these traits following comparatively recent migrations to the Japanese Islands. Changes in limb proportions experienced by Jomon foragers and retention of cold-derived limb proportions among Yayoi people conform to previous findings that report changes in these proportions following long-standing evolution in a specific environment."

"At the same time, there is a genetic component. Low stature persists even under apparently favourable health conditions. The small body size and lean physique of living Khoisan peoples are often cited in human population biology texts as exemplary of adaptation to a hot, sometimes specifically desert, climate. Their low body-mass index is portrayed as support for Bergmann's and Allen's rules (cf. Molnar 1998, Relethford 1997)."--Sealy and Pfeiffer (2000)

New genetic evidence indicates that Africans domesticated cattle independently of the Near East
Gene Study Traces Cattle Herding in Africa, by Ben Harder, National Geographic News, April 11, 2002, retrieved April 7, 2008 from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/04/0411_020411_africacattle.htmlBrief excerpt:
"But new evidence, reported in the April 12 issue of the journal Science, suggests that Africans independently domesticated cattle.
Belgian geneticist Olivier Hanotte, who headed the new study, said the research "reconciles the two schools of thought" about how cattle domestication occurred in Africa.
"There were Near Eastern influences" on African herds, he said, "but they came after local domestication."
Since then, there has been considerable mixing of African and Asian breeds.
Unusual Pattern
In general, the domestication of cattle and other livestock has followed the establishment of agriculture. But archaeological research has shown that the domestication of cattle unfolded differently in Africa than elsewhere in the world.
In many parts of Africa, people herded cattle long before agriculture was introduced from the Near East and south Asia. Some African groups that have herded cattle for centuries have never adopted agriculture at all, or have done so only recently. One example is the Masai of eastern Africa, who rarely slaughter cattle but instead mix the milk and blood of the animals to create a staple of their diet.
Intrigued by the uncommon pattern of cattle domestication in Africa, Hanotte moved to Kenya in 1995 in an effort to explain the development. He and other researchers in Europe began untangling layers of genetic information in cattle DNA to help answer major questions about the history of herding in Africa.
Their findings offer scientists and herders a virtual history book describing how cattle, crucial to so many Africans, came to be so genetically diverse. The research also underscores why preserving that variety is essential.
Hanotte and his colleagues analyzed more than a dozen segments of the cattle genome. Because the sections they looked at don't affect how "fit" an animal is evolutionarily, they aren't subject to the effects of natural selection.
As a result, those genetic segments record the genetic twists and turns of different cattle lineages and, in the language of DNA, serve as scribes of bovine history.
The researchers compared this DNA material among many individual cattle belonging to 50 different herds in 23 African nations. Herders, scientists, and government officials in those countries aided the study by tracking down sometimes-remote herds, testing them, and transmitting the data to Hanotte and his team.
When Hanotte and his colleagues analyzed the samples of cattle DNA, they found that the variation associated with certain segments of genetic code reveal a telling geographic pattern across Africa.
The nature of genetic variation changed like the colors of a rainbow as the researchers looked at cattle from West Africa, Central Africa, and southern Africa. The greatest amount of genetic diversity was found among herds in Central Africa.
Based on the data, Hanotte and his colleagues concluded that people living in Central Africa developed cattle domestication on their own, and that the techniques—or the herders themselves—gradually migrated toward the west and the south, spreading domestication across the continent.
Mixed Origins
In looking at the wide genetic variation among African cattle, the researchers found evidence of interbreeding between cattle native to Africa and an imported breed.
Most modern African herds represent mixtures of two breeds: Africa's native cattle, called taurines (Bos taurus), and a slightly larger Asian breed, known as zebu (Bos indicus), which was domesticated before it arrived in Africa.
Long-distance trade across the Indian Ocean brought many domesticated plants and animals to Africa, including the chicken and camel and cereals such as finger millet and sorghum. Presumably, Hanotte said, trade also brought zebu bulls that farmers interbred with domesticated taurine cows, producing the mixed herds of today.
Some variation in the African herds is also attributable to European influences, Hanotte said. These genetic contributions came in the past few hundred years, during Europe's colonial influence in Africa.
For thousands of years, animal farmers have gradually improved their livestock by selectively breeding animals with different desired traits to endow the offspring with valuable combinations of traits. .." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This post argues that:

Obama's election is no result of alleged "white guilt"

Academic studies of "white guilt" show most white people don't feel or have much of it

White opinion polls show little alleged "guilt"

White behavior shows no "crippling effect" of "guilt"

Far from being cripples many white liberals proffer perfunctory gestures not real substance

Alleged Affirmative Action "guilt quotas" show white guilt is rather thin. Said quotas are not very important in black progress and when quotas were not being blockaded, whites use them for their own benefit- such as application to white legacy admits and white women.

"White guilt" memes may be a diversionary way to shut down debate and continue denial

On the web an assortment of pundits, authors and commenters pump up the "white guilt" balloon, a floating meme which claims, among other things, that white people are piteously burdened or crippled with guilt about black people, guilt caused by pernicious "liberals" who are intent on making white people look bad. According to one prominent proponent of "white guilt", the loathsome burden of guilt suddenly eased in 1995 when white people saw some black folk celebrating the OJ verdict. And behold, a veil lifted from white eyes, hitherto downcast with shame. Why if the negroes be celebrating the acquittal of that no good OJ, then we see clearly now that we have nothing to be "guilty" about. Look at them- their problems are all caused by their own actions. From henceforth, October 23, 1995 (the Day of the OJ Verdict) would be known as the W-G-E-D - or White Guilt Emancipation Day. Their eyes opened and their consciences clear, white people are now free, free at last. A corollary of the above is the election of Barack Obama, which was due to "white guilt" but now that the evil one has revealed his true stripes, white people are once again unburdening themselves- free at last frens, free at last.. Great gosh almighty! We be free at last.

The above is one common formulation of the meme, and not every proponent of "white emancipation" spins it the same way, but its basic outlines are embedded in most narratives- to wit: the crushing psychological burden of white guilt, the ungrateful coloreds who abuse white goodwill, the evil liberals making "us look bad", the vile policies like anti-discrimination laws or AA quotas punishing innocent white people because of this burden of guilt, the election of a negro president as a manifestation of this guilt, and finally, the need for white emancipation from guilt. Lay that burden down y'all, we shall overcome..
But the narrative is all a bit too pat, a bit too convenient. In this corner virtuous white people, and over there, evil liberals, ungrateful negroes, and so on. But what happens when we look at ACTUAL FACTS, rather than propaganda about "white guilt"? Let's find out.
Note- the phrase "white people" below is not meant to apply to ALL white people, just to a substantial majority. Obviously there are some white people who when moving to correct certain injustices or wrongdoing against blacks. or when expressing awareness of such, are not motivated by "guilt" at all - they just want to see the right thing done, or understand the facts, free of distorting propaganda. But in terms of the "guilt" narrative floated per above, this post holds that:

Obama's election is no result of alleged "white guilt"

Academic studies of "white guilt" show most white people don't feel or have much of it

White opinion polls show little alleged "guilt"

White behavior shows no "crippling effect" of "guilt"

Far from being cripples many white liberals proffer perfunctory gestures not real substance

Alleged Affirmative Action "guilt quotas" show white guilt is rather thin. Said quotas are not very important in black progress and when quotas were not being blockaded, whites use them for their own benefit- such as application to white legacy admits and white women.

"White guilt" memes may be a diversionary way to shut down debate and continue denial

FACT 1- Most white people didn't vote for Obama due to "white guilt." Obama got around the same percentage of white votes that other white presidential candidates have gotten in the past. there was no onrush of "white guilt" to vote him in.

Perhaps the best statement of these articles of "truth" is by right wing favorite Ann Coulter in a Fox News appearance:

"White guilt has produced mistake after mistake including the 2008
election when more whites voted for Obama than voted for a Democrat for
decades.. What we've learned is everyone, blacks especially, are better off when
the white guilt bank is shut down, as it was for more than a decade
after the O.J. verdict, and liberals kept trying to push the racial
narrative in their newspapers and on TV, but Americans weren't buying
it.. They were done after October 3rd, 1995, when they saw that verdict and
saw black law students at Howard University cheering it, that was it..."

You tell them g.. g.. gurl.. But one curious note- Coulter says white people finally saw the light after OJ and were "set free" in 1995 from guilt. So how could these emancipated white people still feel "guilty" enough to vote for Barack Obama in 2008? What? A white folk relapse? Our right-wing pundit doesn't explain the contradiction in her claim, but moving on..

Coulter also said Obama got more white votes than Democrats have gotten for decades. This of course is bogus- her standard propaganda approach of repeating falsehoods so they become "truth" to "the base." Bill Clinton got more votes in 1996 than Obama got in 2008- that's 12 years not "decades". And in his second term, Obama got 39% of the white vote, below several earlier Democrat candidates. Once again Coulter is lying. Overall, Obama got about the same average number of white votes as
other recent white Democrat presidential candidates- Obama 43%, Clinton 44%.
Jimmy Carter 48%. Nor is 2008 anything special. Since 1976, Democrats have never
won a majority of white voters- Jimmy Carter managed 48% in 1976, but his
successor Walter Mondale posted a mere 34%, and Bill Clinton did a bit better at
44% in 1996. In 2008 Obama won 43% of the white vote, less than Clinton or
Carter. In 2012 he won 39%, a actual DECLINE, but still near the 40% average
for white Dem candidates over the last 10 presidential elections.

In short, White people voted for Obama in the same
proportion they voted for white candidates. They did not need to vote for
“guilt” or because “it would be nice to have a black president.” Give them more
credit than that. They (a) were tired of Bush and his war, (b) did not want
Clinton cronyism back, (c) wanted the liberal gravy train from which they
benefited to keep rolling, and (d) were unconvinced enough by the weak
Republican alternative- which in 2008 included the dubious Sarah Palin, herself
an “affirmative action” pick to apply the same reasoning. So much for “white
guilt" here.

FACT 2- MOST WHITES FEEL NO "GUILT" AT ALL.
ACADEMIC STUDIES OF "WHITE GUILT" FIND VERY LITTLE OF THE ALLEGED "GUILT"..

What about the writings so oft hailed by "guilt" proponents like Shelby Steele? OK this brings us to a favorite right wing book by author Shelby Steele, who, happens to be black. See we have a black guy agreeing with us, many proponents smugly note- how could we have any anti-black animus, or how can we be distorting the actual facts? Steele presents himself in the usual way- the straight-talking "man of courage" on racial issues, who dares say "things others dare not say" and so on. But upon closer examination, neither this stance, or the arguments he brings forward are all they seem. Let's get to it:

Right wing "guilt" proponents deliberately ignore
the central fact of American life that most whites feel no "guilt" at
all. They banish guilt to a past era- long ago- hence the popular white refrain:
"I had nothing to do with owning slaves." Of course you didn't but why
is this non-issue the frequent central response save as a way to dismiss actual
evidence of white profiteering, oppression and privilege that has damaged blacks
both historically and at present? Contrary to Steele's notion, the detailed
work of scholars like Eduardo Bonilla-Silva (Racism Without Racists), for
example, demonstrates in depth that whites are mostly INDIFFERENT or in deep
denial about any "guilt." In fact in poll after poll whites typically
dismiss their own culpability or complicity in creating racial inequality in America,
and heavily blame black people for every ill besetting them.

And as others like
author Tim Wise show 2009- (Between Barack and Hard Place) as early as 1963,
whites in polls were dismissing black concerns saying that blacks had just as
good opportunities as whites in the workplace or in education. This same
dismissal mentality continues on into today's polls. Many whites for example
still seem to think a majority of blacks are on welfare (a bogus notion), or
that black folk depend to any significant extent on "affirmative action
quotas" (another bogus notion) and a host of other erroneous beliefs and
attitudes. Indeed, even when whites know these notions are false, they still
keep pushing such distorted propaganda lines (particularly right wingers) in
order to dismiss black concerns. In short, when the total picture is looked at,
white people are not in "guilt" mode at all.

Shelby Steele in his book "White Guilt" fails to
even minimally address data on actual white thinking and behavior. Let's look at some more of his claims on so-called "white guilt."

Below is a review of academic studies on "white
guilt." As can be seen, the authors examined four studies on white guilt.
Their conclusion was that while SOME white people, particularly those more
aware of discrimination against blacks etc. etc. felt guilt, overall levels of
"white guilt" were rather LOW - contradicting Steele's notion (as well as Coulter and the rest of the "guilt" brigade) about
this so-called "guilt burden" white people are carrying. As a
well-paid academic and think-tank writer, Steele had easy access to these and
other data, dealing specifically with his "white guilt" thesis. But
he conveniently skips over them-perhaps because they undermine his claims. Here
is the data- QUOTE:

"Four studies examine the strength of feelings of White
guilt, the relationship between White guilt and possible antecedents to this
guilt, and the consequences of White guilt for attitudes toward affirmative
action. Even though mean White guilt tended to be low, with the mean being just
below the midpoint of the scale, the range and variability confirms the existence
of feelings of White guilt for some. White guilt was associated with more
negative personal evaluations of Whites and the theoretical antecedents of
stronger beliefs in the existence of White privilege, greater estimates of the
prevalence of discrimination against Blacks, and low prejudice against
Blacks."

Furthermore as Swin notes- even when say some white students
feel initial guilt when exposed to the history of discrimination against black
people, it does not necessarily last. Their eventual reaction is not any haste
to "help" or "compensate" or commiserate with black people.
To the contrary- a common follow-on reaction is DENIAL AND RESISTANCE. Says
Swin:

-----

"Through her observations of students in class, Tatum
noticed that many White students experience strong guilt feelings "when
they become aware of the pervasiveness of racism in our society" (p. 463).
Even the students who say they do not discriminate against Blacks claim that
they feel guilt by their association with the White race. An unfortunate consequence
of the guilt feelings for some White students, Tatum claimed, is the resistance
to learn more about race and racism. This is consistent with early authors'
discussions of guilt reducing or evading defensive reactions such as denial of
discrimination (Allport, 1954/1986; Golightly, 1947)."

-Swin 1998.

In addition, when the matter of guilt was laid before whites
researchers found some individual sympathy for black individuals who had to
suffer, but little sense of overall "collective guilt" among whites.
Indeed research data going back to 1972, supposedly a hotbed time per Steele,
when guilt was developing that translated into the AA programs of the 1970s,
finds "white guilt" to be virtually non-existent, and this was a
study at a supposedly "progressive" Midwestern university, far from
the mean, old South. AGAIN NOTE:

----------

"In contrast, Devine, Monteith, Zuwerink, and Elliot
(1991) have offered empirical support for reports of White guilt. However,
guilt for Devine et al. stems from a personal violation of standards in a
particular situation rather than a general feeling of corporate or collective
guilt. Collective guilt is not necessarily a result of one's own prejudicial
behavior. Instead, it is a result of knowledge of the advantages one receives
from being in a privileged group. It is the latter form of guilt that is the
focus of our article. We are aware of only one study that has examined
endorsement of White guilt. Bardis (1972) found very little endorsement of
feelings of guilt in his sample of White Americans at a Midwestern university
and concluded that "deep guilt feelings" are virtually
nonexistent."

---------

Note this was more white liberal college types in 1972. Fast
forward 26 years and what do we find when Swin studies a sample of supposedly
ore progressive college students- so-called "white guilt" was AGAIN,
rather LOW. Impossible!! If anything, with these progressive young white
college kids, the deck should have been stacked in favor of white "guilt."
After all, haven't we been told for decades how the education system is
churning out all these confused, "guilty" white kids? But in fact, no
such picture emerges from the data, debunking assorted right wing claims.

"Similar to Bardis's (1972) findings, scores were low
on our measure of White guilt. Perhaps this low score was a function of the present sample and their level of White racial identity. Most of the participants in both Bardis's study and the present study were young college
students.."

--------------------------------------

Interestingly Swin found some data supporting Steele's claim
that higher levels of "guilt" among those whites who felt guilty
might cause a more favorable reaction to things like "affirmative
action." Aha you say! Why doesn't Steele then use this academic support to
bolster his notions? As we saw above, the overall weight of the research
debunks numerous aspects of his claims, and even in the matter of AA, support
for such programs was partly a product of political orientation, not mere "guilt."
It is interesting (and telling) that Steele skips mention of the research of
Swin or the others on white guilt mentioned above in any of his books- Content
of Our Character (1991), White Guilt (2006) or Shame (2014).

As can be seen above, this research goes back decades, and
in fact Swin specifically mentions Steele's works in the 1990s on white guilt
in her article, even finding partial support for Steele's other notion that
white guilt may influence openness towards affirmative action, though political
orientation may ALSO play a part in that openness. Yet again and again, over 3
tomes, Steele dishonestly avoids substantially addressing the specific
weaknesses in his claims, weaknesses noted over 16 years ago. He simply keeps
recycling the same old shaky talking points, in book after book, after book.

FACT 3- ACTUAL POLL DATA ON WHAT
WHITE PEOPLE ARE THINKING REVEALS VERY
LITTLE ALLEGED "GUILT"

When actual data on what white people are thinking is
consulted there is no wave of "white guilt" afflicting white America.
For example a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll of almost 1000 adults in 2002 did not
show white people in any paroxysm of alleged "guilt." 9 out of 10
white Americans for example rejected reparations; 62% rejected any government
apology for legally permitting slavery. In the 1980s and beyond, polls shows
consistently strong white opposition to affirmative action. In five separate Gallup
polls for example between 1977 and 1989, no more than 11 percent of whites
endorsed preferential treatment for minorities. In all five polls a majority of
respondents actually wanted MORE tests to apply for employment, and more
barriers, etc., hardly the picture of white people cringing in "guilt."
(Gallup 291, 1989). Gallup polls in
the 1990s show a similar pattern. In fact one poll in 1995 found that when
blacks were the issue white respondents were more hostile and harsher in their
opinions compared to when others like white women were in view. (Gallup
1995).

Note- "quotas" are not the same as "equal
opportunity." Whites generally favor equal opportunity especially where
white women are concerned. It is ironic that many Civil rights measures such as
the CRA of 1964 are claimed by right wingers as "benefiting blacks" when
in fact the main numerical beneficiaries are white women, who benefited greatly-
in employment, pay scales, and other sectors. If there were this alleged wave
of "white guilt" then whites would presumably show less opposition to
things like quotas. But on into the 2000s, clear and consistent majorities of
white Americans resolutely opposed them. For example, in one 2000 NES poll, 91
percent of whites stated that they disapprove of race preferences. (National
Election Studies 2000) This is contrary to Steele's claim of a vast influence
of white "guilt" that would seem to compensate black people for past
wrongs. There is no such vast wave of "white guilt". Both Polls and
actual white behavior debunk any such notion.

Steele's attempts to psychoanalyze Americans on race show
some insight, but again, he is heavy on personal opinion and anecdote. What
have others who have studies race relations in depth written we want to know
and how do you respond to that? Steele has little to say, giving the book a
thin feel. There has been a huge amount on the topic, credible scholars in
academia, to well respected journalists. why don't you address at least a
portion of it? Steele cops out.

Even poll data is not needed to cast doubt on Steele's
notion of "white guilt". It is true that again and again, polls of
whites suggest that whites think racial discrimination is something of the past.
Most are not on any "guilt trip" at all. But white behavior on the
ground also suggests that "guilt" is rather thin there.

White people don't feel guilty about current segregation. For example, whites have basically segregated off their
schools (hence today's phenomenon of racially integrated schools declining) as
well as their communities by various methods- from zoning and other legal
controls designed to suppress the supply of housing, to "white flight"
to the indirect "white price"- i.e. minorities being priced out of
various venues by more affluent whites- hence less blacks and browns to hang
around. Most whites feel no "guilt" about such things at all,
debunking Steele's core notion about so-called "guilt trips."

White people don't feel guilty about affirmative action benefiting wealthy white people. As far as the white trump card of complaint, alleged "white
suffering" under "affirmative action": A 2010 Century Foundation
study (The Future of Affirmative Action) found that for every student of color
who benefited at all from affirmative action at a selective college there are
two whites with lower scores and grades than the average, but who were admitted
anyway because of family connections or parental alumni status. And as regards
affirmative action (AA) the main beneficiaries are white women not blacks. But
see, white people have no guilt at all in bashing blacks as being such lazy,
exclusive beneficiaries of "affirmative action."

As far as college admissions wealthy whites easily buy their way into elite colleges as shown in detail by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Daniel Golden in his book The Price of Admission: How America’s Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges—and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates. Golden shows how mediocre or low-ranked whites get access due to their parent's wealth. He also shows how minorities are penalized when bogus "athletic scholarships" are given to wealthy whites for participating in uncompetitive pseudo-sports or low interest sports that require significantly less skill or generate much less interest than mainstream sports. As he says:

"Colleges discriminate against minorities and low- and middle-income students by reserving slots—and, outside the Ivy League, scholarships—for athletes in sports only rich white people tend to play."

Infamous squeegee "terrorists"- a staple of right-wing discourse.... turns out only about 75 of them existed

Whites don't feel "guilty"
about policing practices that unfairly target blacks. Well into the late
1990s and into the 2000, police "profiling" practices continued to
target black drivers out of proportion to their presence on the road, or any
crimes committed. The infamous "black shakedown" seizures of money
from black motorists in the 1990s by people like Sheriff Bob Vogel in Florida is among the best known of several pernicious practices, but several more have been well documented, such as the "black cash" shakedowns by Texas law enforcement against minority motorists- note this is in 2008, not the 1990s.

In addition, Professor E. Bonilla -Silva 2009
also shows data on white perceptions of black crime out of proportion to actual
occurrence. Blacks for example were in one study made up 43% of those arrested
for rape though only 33% of actual women raped said their attackers were black.
Even more disturbing, Smith, Visher, and Davidson found that whereas the
probability of arrest for cases in which the victim was white and the suspect
black was 0.336, for cases of white suspects and black victims the probability
dropped to 0.107. Blacks represent 65 percent of those exonerated for rape and
half of the exonerations of men convicted of raping white women (Bonilla-Silva 2009- Racism Without Racists). There are few whites documented voicing any "guilt"
about such disparities, though a small number has brought them to the attention of the larger society. On a more humorous note, turns out there were only about 75 of the infamous "squegee men" in the NYC, fodder for endless anti-black propaganda and symbol of "decay" in a city of over 4 million people. But that's another tale..

White people (small percentage excepted) don't feel guilty about black over-representation in the criminal justice system- in fact they want harsher treatment of blacks research shows. Where is this alleged "guilt"? In fact, a recent Stanford study shows that when whites are given information on the discrepancies in black incarceration and other such measures as compared to whites, a significant majority do not respond with any "guilt" - but jiust the opposite. They actually go on to SUPPORT EVEN HARSHER, MORE PUNITIVE measures that will impact blacks negatively. [Racial Disparities in Incarceration Increase Acceptance of Punitive Policies Psychological Science0956797614540307- 2014]. Far from feeling more sympathy or supporting "liberal" measures, most white respondents responded even MORE harshly.

And when those harsh policing or criminal justice system actions hit home, white people as a whole don't seem to be consumed with guilt. If they were, how come discrimination against non-whites is
still alive and well- as government reports show, and as the 2-year
backlog in EEOC cases and court filings show? And why for example does the "War on Drugs", disproportionately hit blacks hard- even though several studies show
blacks are not any more likely to be either drug users or dealers than
whites.
(http://www.hrw.org/news/2009/03/02/us-drug-arrests-skewed-race).

White people (small percentage excepted) don't feel guilty about the much larger number of FALSE CONVICTIONS handed to blacks in the criminal justice system or the fact that blacks receive LONGER prison sentences than whites for the same crimes.False convictions. One study for example found that 5 Of 10 Falsely Convicted Prisoners are African American. A new U.S. registry or database put together by scholars at the University of Michigan Law School and Northwestern University School of Law highlights more than 2,000 innocents who were falsely convicted of serious crimes since 1989. A closer look demonstrates that half of those exonerated were African American. Breaking down the numbers on the 873 exonerations, researchers found that five of out ten defendants were African Americans; nine out of ten were men. More than 100 of the 873 exonerations were prisoners that had been facing death sentences. Among the 305 charged with sexual assaults, about two-thirds of exonerations came by DNA testing. Nearly one-third of the 416 false homicide convictions were exonerated by genetic testing. [Gross and Shaffer 2012. Exonerations in the United States, 1989 – 2012 Report by the National Registry of Exonerations. University of Michigan Law School -National Registry of Exonerations - exonerationregistry.org.]http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-2000-convicted-then-exonerated-in-23-years/

Disparate sentencing. And what about disparate prison sentencing for the same crime? A new academic study at the University of British Columbia found that of 58,000 federal criminal cases, significant disparities in sentencing for blacks and whites arrested for the same crimes. The research led to the conclusion that African-Americans’ jail time was almost 60% longer than white sentences. According to the researchers, racial disparities can be explained “in a single prosecutorial decision: whether to file a charge carrying a mandatory minimum sentence…. Black men were on average more than twice as likely to face a mandatory minimum charge as white men were, holding arrest offense as well as age and location constant.” Prosecutors are about twice as likely to impose mandatory minimums on black defendants as on white defendants.
See: [Racial Disparity in Federal Criminal Charging and Its Sentencing Consequences (by M. Marit Rehavi and Sonja B. Starr, University of Michigan Law & Econ, Empirical Legal Studies Center Paper)] and [Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the US Criminal Justice System (by Christopher Hartney and Linh Vuong, National Council on Crime and Delinquency) -http://www.nccdglobal.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdf/created-equal.pdf]http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/black-americans-given-longer-sentences-than-white-americans-for-same-crimes?news=843984

White people don't feel guilty about freezing out black applicants in employment. On the employment front, one MIT study found that even when
job applicants are equally qualified in terms of experience and education,
applicants with white-sounding names are 50 percent more likely than those with
black-sounding names to get a callback for an interview. Another found that
white male job applicants with criminal records are more likely to get called
back for an interview than black men without one, even when all other
qualifications are indistinguishable (Wise 2009). As scholars of one study note:

"We study race in the labor market by sending fictitious resumes to help-wanted ads in Boston and Chicago newspapers. To manipulate perceived race, resumes are randomly assigned African-American-or White-sounding names. White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews. Callbacks are also more responsive to resume quality for White names than for African-American ones. The racial gap is uniform across occupation, industry, and employer size. We also find little evidence that employers are inferring social class from the names. Differential treatment by race still appears to still be prominent in the U.S. labor market."

-- Bertrand and Mullalinathan 2004. Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? American Economic Review. Sept 2004- 991-1013

Perhaps some right-wingers have too much time on their hands, but most whites are simply too busy looking after their own interests and agendas to even think about blacks.
Let's look at the dating scene in heavily liberal areas as an example. Are white people "crippled" with guilt as they go about their business? Not at all. Blacks simply don't register in any significant way. As regards gay "hookups" for example, numerous gay men of color who have researched
and experienced the issue say white gays are rather indifferent and sometimes even hostile towards
their darker brethren, though of course there is variation in all communities. Says
Chong-suk Han (2007-Quote): "Despite the civil rights dialogue used by the
gay community, many ‘gay’ organizations and members of the ‘gay’ community
continue to exclude men of color from leadership positions and ‘gay’ establishments,
thus continuing to add to the notion that ‘gay’ equals ‘white’."
Hmm, not a lot of "white guilt" on the gay end, nor
does much guilt show up on the straight side of the street either.

Let's see. As the narrative goes, liberals are consumed with "white guilt" and so on. Surely then, these liberals, to prove their liberal, non-racist credentials, would be showing black folk some attention on the dating sites in liberal areas? Stats from dating venue in liberal areas should show the influence of this alleged "guilt" right? Sorry. Nope. Detailed
analyses of dating sites in major liberal markets like San Francisco, Boston etc show that as for whites, blacks get the least amount
of replies or attention. See Christian Rudder's 2014 book "Dataclysm"
for a detailed analysis of OK Cupid for example, but it is a pattern that shows
up on Match and other major sites.

The data suggest that white people are simply too busy with their own agendas to give blacks a second thought. Note how liberal whites in these settings are not at all concerned about "microaggressions" and "guilt" - the blacks simply don't register, or matter. So, again, one wonders, where is this wave of "white guilt"
Shelby Steele and his cronies keeps talking about? Black folk are scratching their heads.

White people don't feel guilty about white ethnic networks monopolizing jobs for cronies and friends and freezing out black folk. If
anything real data out there shows it is mostly indifference, or muted
hostility. But of course, Steele ducks around detailed discussion of ACTUAL
white behavior, to pump up the weak "guilt" meme for his white
conservative allies. And does anyone really believe that the deeply embedded white ethnic networks, the ones like the Irish or Italian networks that control
hundreds of thousands of government jobs and that excluded and continue to partially
exclude black people having any "guilt"? Or the cynical union bosses
and rank and file? Are the significant white majorities opposed to affirmative
action, not to mention those filing lawsuits re "reverse" discrimination
consumed by "guilt"? Where are these cringing white hordes, doubled
over in "guilt"? When reality on the ground is looked at much of
Steele's spiel is laughable.

White behavior does not show much "guilt"
at all in the current day. Another study on labor market discrimination showed the same US pattern across majority white countries- Australia, and in Europe. If anything, the data suggests that whites 'primary concern is to advance their own interests, not spend time on "guilt." QUOTE:

"Controlled experiments, using matched pairs of bogus transactors, to
test for discrimination in the marketplace have been conducted for over
30 years, and have extended across 10 countries. Significant, persistent
and pervasive levels of discrimination have been found against
non-whites and women in labour, housing and product markets. Rates of
employment discrimination against non-whites, in excess of 25% have been
measured in Australia, Europe and North America. "

White people don't feel guilty about their high representation in government employment. Its only when a black man gets a piece of the action then there's a "problem."
Right wing pundits like convicted felon Dinesh Dsouza and Ann Coulter sneer at black representation in government employment, but don't have much to say when its white people feeding from the public trough. White groups like the Irish at one time had ONE-THIRD of the working populations employed by government (Bayor and Meagher 1996), but that's OK you see. It's only when a black man shows up then the hypocrites leap into sneering commentary. The blunt fact is that whites have been feeding deeply and heavily from the government bucket and indeed used their control of that bucket to move themselves up economically.

Government jobs were crucial in the economic and social progress of white Irish Americans for example, who manipulated that control to discriminate against other Americans. Take away the discriminatory manipulation and domination and the point still holds. Taking any opportunity open- including government jobs- is nothing special among US ethnic groups. Indeed one reason for over-representation in such jobs is that they were OPENLY ADVERTISED, unlike the "hidden jobs market" and white networks of cronies, friends and relatives that get "the hookup." But such blunt realities are conveniently skipped over by the guilt-mongers. Let's look at how the white Irish benefited from and used government jobs:

"In the city's building trades such as plumbers and the masons, Irish-dominated unions adopted nepotistic membership requirements that kept out new arrivals... Similarly the Irish used their political connections to entrench themselves in both skilled and unskilled city government jobs for policemen, firefighters, rapid transit workers and school teachers, even before these workers had their unions recognized."

"nepotistic membership requirements that kept out new arrivals... Similarly the Irish used their political connections to entrench themselves in both skilled and unskilled city government jobs for policemen, firefighters, rapid transit workers and school teachers, even before these workers had their unions recognized."

"As early as 1855 Irish men were the largest group of the cartmen of New York, including those that specialized in doing city work on sanitation, landfill road projects and the like. To be a private cartman one required a license; to work for the municipal government in particular one needed good connections. Even before the massive influx of the feminine Irish in 1843, the Democrat-dominated Common Council gave a large number of market licenses to Irish men, much to the chagrin of native American entrepreneurs."
--FROM: Bayor and Meagher 1996, The New York Irish, 96-97

"As a consequence, the public sector employed a full one-third of first, second and third-generation Irish Americans in 1930 compared with just 6 percent in 1900. This patronage helped produce a heavy concentration of Irish in jobs on the fire and police departments and in municipally owned subways, streetcars, waterworks and port facilities. Many of the city's Irish middle class worked on the public payroll, especially in the public schools, and thousands of others labored in construction jobs tied to city expenditures. For second-generation Irish-American women, jobs as schoolteachers were the most sought-after career. Such patronage policies would help to bind the Irish working class and much of the middle class Tammany Hall for another generation."
--Bayor and Meagher 1996. The New York Irish, p. 313

---------------------------------------

FACT 5 - FAR FROM CRIPPLED CREATURES OF "GUILT", OR RAVING PC IDEOLOGUES, MANY WHITE LIBERALS ARE PASSIVE, AND OFFER PERFUNCTORY GESTURES RATHER THAN REAL SUBSTANCE.

White liberals talk a good game but when crunch time comes may be missing in action. When the full picture is looked at, white liberals are not exactly losing sleep over "guilt." Indeed in report after report, white liberals, supposedly the most "guilt ridden" of all, may make boilerplate expressions of support or sympathy, but don't seem terribly concerned with doing something of SUBSTANCE where blacks are concerned. This complaint about white liberals- plenty of lightweight or trivial gestures of support, little real substance- is an old one, but still very much alive and well. Martin Luther King complained about it during the Civil Rights era. Says King in: "Letter from a Birmingham Jail." "I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate..." He goes on to talk of a passive liberalism that is long on flowery rhetoric or symbolic gestures, but short on real action. The complaint also appears in the writings of ex-Black Panther David Hilliard's "This Side of Glory," and the detailed scholarship of ant-racists like Eduard Bonilla-Silva's "Racism Without Racists", to everything in between. As far as police brutality for example, white liberals don't seem like people wracked with guilt. In fact some of the worse, most publicized incidents of police misconduct or brutality is in heavily liberal areas- Los Angeles, Seattle, New York, etc. Liberals muttered the usual thing but quietly approved Mayor Rudy Guiliani's "broken windows" approach and its sometimes corollary- harassment and unjust treatment of innocent black people.

So-called "white progressive areas" may just be about lip service. Well publicized "I can't breathe" chokehold victim Eric Garner found that out. But so did a much less publicized elderly black man- stroke victim Allen Harris in Los Angeles, brutally abused by white police. So disgusted were the jury at the callous treatment accorded the crippled black man, that it ordered the worse offending officer to pay an additional $90,000 out of his own individual pocket to the crippled black victim, on top of the 1.59 million settlement. Aside from the malice shown, what also irked the jury were was the outright lying by white officers who had been at the scene. And speaking of Seattle, it is a staunchly liberal place, but an independent federal report found deep patterns of excessive force being used against minority citizens. Yes- in liberal, granola loving, progressive Seattle! So if "the liberals" are so terrible, supposedly handicapping other white people with foolish "guilt" why is it that so many of these incidents of brutality are taking place in bastions of nice, progressive white liberalism?

Says Naton blogger
Mychal Denzel Smith In White People Have To Give Up Racism
"Not every white person is a racist, but the genius of racism is that you don’t have to participate to enjoy the spoils. If you’re white, you can be completely oblivious, passively accepting the status quo, and reap the rewards." Hat tip to Gradient for that. And as one Seattle protest leader notes below about white liberals- (its worth quoting for it shows how the narrative about alleged "white guilt" supposedly consuming liberals is bogus). If anything, white liberals are often indifferent, or passive, and prone to offer perfunctory gestures or symbolic support but little else. So again one wonders, where is this massive wave of "white guilt" we keep hearing about? QUOTE:

“The problem with .. white Seattle progressives in
general, is that they are utterly and totally useless (when not outright
harmful) in terms of the fight for Black lives. While we are drowning
in their liberal rhetoric, we have yet to see them support Black
grassroots movements or take on any measure of risk and responsibility
for ending the tyranny of white supremacy in our country and in our
city. This willful passivity while claiming solidarity with the
#BlackLivesMatter movement in an effort to be relevant is over.."

"Political correctness" may be less about white guilt and and more about petty power trips that come with "monitoring" others for "rule violations" in PC venues. On college campuses some public intellectuals lament that there is a new hyper-sensitivity among white students, invoking their right not to be offended. Change has been not particularly driven by blacks and browns, but white feminists, gays and leftist types, who may INVOKE "sensitivity" towards the coloreds but whose primary agenda lies elsewhere. Attacks against traditional Christianity for example can be disguised as "protections" needed for "sensitivity" and "inclusiveness" - translating into censorship of said traditional views. This outcome may suit some gays quite well- the primary agenda having nothing to do with blacks or any "race guilt." Where they do appear in the picture the "people of color" may be the stalking horses, the cat's paw. White students, particularly females, seem to be flexing their power in this arena, even intimidating college teachers in the material and methods used to teach. As noted above with dating sites, whites seem to be driven not by any "guilt" but by their own power, control and self-gratification agendas in particular venues. Part of the payoff is also self-congratulation- to be more holier or righteous, or more enlightened than these other people. Blacks are mere instruments to these white ends.

FACT 6: While SOME guilty liberals may "affirmative action" as compensatory policy, when the overall picture is viewed, whites ensured that "quotas" served their own agendas, such as applying them to white women, and ensured that would at best, be a weak measure affecting a small minority of blacks.

Affirmative action quotas are not the "smoking gun of guilt" they are often made out to be. It is true SOME liberals, having guilt, support AA quotas as a compensatory measure, but the overall record shows not only suggests minimal white guilt in action as far as "quotas" but substantial opposition and resentment, and manipulation of alleged "giveaways" not to help blacks but whites. 7 points are applicable:

Whites were the creators of "quotas" - i.e, "white only" jobs, housing, government services, etc etc, and "affirmative action" itself began as a measure to benefit WHITE union workers discriminated against due to union membership. Courts realized that merely saying "please stop" was ineffectual to stop discriminatory action against white unionists.

Whites ensured that "quotas" served their own agendas, such as applying them to white women, or "legacy" admittees in universities. As we shall see below, such "legacy admits" play an interesting role in rnsuring higher levels of white representation on campus compared to Asians.

Whites not only fiercely opposed quotas for blacks, but watered them down into weak measures affecting a only small minority of blacks. So called "guilt quotas" have been ineffectual in combating continuing anti-black discrimination- the EEOC for example has a TWO YEAR BACKLOG of such cases. As one detailed research study shows, continuing discrimination by whites hardly suggest any so-called "guilt." Quote:

"Research buttresses this evidence of wage discrimination with findings of significant race- and gender-based discrimination in hiring. For example, Harvard University researchers found that résumés with “white-sounding” names such as “Emily” are 50 percent more likely to elicit interviews than equivalent résumés with “black-sounding” names such as “Lakisha” (Bertrand and Mullainathan 2004). In addition, a multi-year, national study on race and sex discrimination in large and midsized private businesses found that intentional discrimination exists in every region of the country and in each of nine occupational categories ...” (Blumrosen and Blumrosen 2002). Even as recently as this year, the U.S. Department of Labor Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs found that FedEx engaged in discrimination against 21,000 applicants in 15 states (U.S. Department of Labor 2012). In short, although the American ideal may be to judge individuals by the content of their character, we have not yet guaranteed equal opportunity in all cases."

Quotas such as in college admissions affect only a small minority of black students, and that mostly in politically correct venues such as elite campuses. And even then, such quotas have been heavily watered down or restricted, ever since the Bakke case in the 1970s.

Whites are themselves using college admission quotas to keep out or hold down higher performing Asians. Admission "point" systems allegedly "helping only" blacks are MORE helping whites, by enabling them to bypass and squeeze ahead of Asians who may post better raw numbers. Unz's analysis suggests that certain elite institutions can manipulate a variety of factors, not because of "guilt" or "self-hate" but to help whites edge out the Asian competition- you know- via that prototypical "well rounded" candidate. Translation: less "narrow" Asian grinders on campus. Sweet. The beauty too is that Blacks can be used as front-men and scapegoats for the above- taking the heat from assorted bigots, bashers and baiters. In the meantime, behind the scenes, the admission structures are manipulated to hinder or slow down the real competition- Asians.

Far from being crippled with guilt, many whites have advocated, or accepted or tolerated a deliberately distorted, hypocritical narrative disparaging black achievements or work as the products of "quotas" while pumping up whites as paragons of virtuous "merit." In fact, black progress depends very little on any race quotas as even conservatives like Thomas Sowell 2004, 1983, 1994 show. Black economic and educational advance has little to do with AA quotas. Most blacks for example had ALREADY pulled themselves above the poverty line PRIOR to the start of AA quotas in the 1970s. Blacks earning college degrees and attending college, or gaining managerial, technical and professional jobs were ALREADY on the rise PRIOR to AA quotas. Single professionalblack women as early as 1969, had ALREADY posted incomes HIGHER than the white female average- a trend in motion BEFORE AA quotas came about. AA quotas, even when implemented, never accounted for any but a minor proportion of black employment or education despite the steady drumbeat of right wing propaganda.

Other bogus narratives claims an assortment of bad things happening due to "quotas"- such as crime increasing when more black police are hired, In fact, crime began a steady drop in the 1990s, when minority police hires were at their HIGHEST in history. And assorted narratives of swarms of minorities "under quotas" allegedly swamping supposedly more virtuous white people are dubious as well. The percent increase of black officers hired in cities with consent decrees ("quotas" in the narrative) for example was a mere 2.5 percentage points more than in cities without AA consent decrees. In short the share of police employment going to dreaded "minorities" like blacks under affirmative action was laughably small, contradicting the distorted doom and gloom narratives of "HBD" lore. (US Dept of Justice, "Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics" Reports(LEMAS) 1987, 1990 and 1993.)

This man apparently set white people free from "guilt" by his sacrifice.. :)

FACT 7- NOTION OF "GUILT" ARE OFTEN SHALLOW- FAILING TO ADDRESS WHITE PRIVILEGE, AND MAY BE A DIVERSIONARY TACTIC TO AVOID DEBATE

It is unknown how one can talk about white guilt and not
address white privilege. Author Shelby Steel above, and other proponents seem to think that pointing out the matter of
such privilege is promotion of "guilt." But such privilege is a fact
on the ground. As seen with his own example of Clarence Thomas, whites who have
their network of connections, built up over 2 centuries have it a lot better
than a guy like Thomas. Was it because AA "devalued" his degree that
Thomas did not get lucrative "big money" offers from white law firms,
or was it because he was a non-name small town black guy with an otherwise
unremarkable college record? If he was white and had access to white networks
Thomas would have made out a lot better. Thomas was also hired on to the legal staff of chemical giant Monsanto, IN PART, because Monsanto's conservative Republican general counsel Ned Putzell Jr. wanted an African American and a woman on board, as a good political move, according to Thomas' sympathetic biographer, Andrew Peyton Thomas. As a Yale graduate with a servicable record, Thomas was a credible pick, more credible than many white graduates out of lower ranked no-name state universities. At his interviews Putzell was also impressed that Thomas didn't seem to have a chip on his shoulder- nothing unusual there- people often get hired based on how well employers think they will "fit in". The initial position was a regular, boring staff position, not a special "diversity outreach" type thing. Thomas took his place there like anyone else.

And for the area in Missouri, a southern state, the salary was not much compared to a big Wall Street Firm (what is?), but in local terms it was decent, and was twice what he made before. Monsanto was a giant firm with more in-house attorneys than usual, so there was room for promotion. And it was Thomas, who tired of routine legal work on toxic waste and enviro issues, left Monsanto to return to the more exciting public sector.
In short, Thomas' Yale degree was not the allegedly "valueless" piece of paper it was later made out to be. The "piece of paper" worked well for him.

The failure of Steele to address such crucial matters just
shows how shallow his claim, and that of other guilt mongers is. Again, if you are writing about "white guilt" you have to
address one of its key components- actual or perceived white privilege. You
don't have to write an academic tome but you should be willing to candidly and
honestly address such issues. But Steele again and again cops out. When actual
data is referenced, in fact, sober, credible studies of employment like Deidre
Royser's 2003 "Race and the Invisible hand: How White Networks Exclude
Black Men from Blue-Collar Jobs" that again, and again blacks have to rely
on things like advertised job openings, advertised formal training programs etc
etc, while whites are quickly and easily hooked up for jobs and other benefits
by their informal white networks, including "good old boy" (or girl) white
networks.

Guilt- a diversionary tactic? Steele avoids talking about such things in any depth,
subsuming it all under "guilt" - a tactic numerous white right
wingers use to stifle or dismiss discussion- the equivalent "conservative
correctness" to the leftie "political correctness." The advantage of the "white guilt" narrative is twofold. First, it is an excellent diversionary mechanism to sidetrack or shutdown debate about white privilege. Simply pointing out for example how the racist activities of white unions hurt black working men for decades and gained whites massive advantages in the labor market, advantages locked in for generations, can be dismissed by saying - "oh you are just trying to make me feel guilty." But the point is not making anyone feel "guilty." The point is debunking, and exposing (a) denial of the simple facts, (b) distortion of the record, (c) the deceptive nature of the guilt propaganda narrative. That's the bottom line.

The second advantage of the "guilt" narrative is that it can be spun as a PERSONAL attack of some sort, which will, as expected by the narrative's manipulators, provoke white defensiveness and denialism - whites as unfairly "accused" victims. This defensiveness in turn can be used as a right-wing mobilization mechanism built upon resentment and denial. Some whites have played the game for years- such as spinning "quotas" as a scourge, "swamping white people with unqualified" negroes, who are supposedly "taking all the jobs" and so on. Richard Nixon's "southern strategy" and Jesse Helms classic "white hands" campaign commercial, are just 2 of the manifestations of this calculated and cynical approach. On the liberal side of the fence, such denialism and defensiveness can be used as a basis of shutting out or silencing critiques of racism and privilege below the surface.